Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Why aren't the police getting organized with a response?

I don’t know. You’d have to ask them.

I didn’t attack you personally.

I said AOC would be proud if you.

Maybe it was meant as a compliment and I missed it.

“Defund.”

LOL

You are towing the liberal line. What will Sycamore and goose chit say?


https://100percentfedup.com/nycs-co...stribute-money-to-appease-far-left-base/

Here's another dirty dead cop you can add to your trophy room honey

https://www.kmov.com/news/funeral-s...eb01460-a7e3-11ea-b58e-d71455217e75.html

Police are for the most part not unionized. In my state, Missouri there are less than 10 departments that have unions. I can only count 7 that I know of in the entire state. The state patrol is not even unionized. SO it depends where you live as to unions.

Demilitarize

https://fee.org/articles/the-militarization-of-americas-police-a-brief-history/


Get the weapons of war off our streets!” This may sound familiar, as it’s often heard from those attempting to pass more gun control legislation. But what you don’t hear is that it’s simply untrue that “weapons of war” are available to the general public.

What is true is that you’d last about three minutes in a conventional war with an AR-15, even with one of the most aggressive builds you can get your hands on. The only people with “weapons of war” on America’s streets are, increasingly, the police.

As the police have militarized, focus has shifted from one who keeps the peace to one who enforces the law—an important difference.

Thanks primarily to the Pentagon's 1033 program, which allows law enforcement agencies to get their hands on Department of Defense technology, and the Bush-era War on Terror, American police have received a startling amount of heavy-duty, military-grade hardware.

In fact, between 1998 and 2014, the dollar value of military hardware sent to police departments skyrocketed from $9.4 million to a startling $796.8 million.

As the police have militarized, focus has shifted from one who keeps the peace to one who enforces the law—an important difference.

Thanks Ribka, best post of the weekend.


mike r

The unions are partially the scape goats. They have their place and where I was at the union offered little in the form of protection if you violated some rules or SOP's. If the Chief wanted you gone, you were gone and it was up to you to appeal. Our union only wanted our dues. The mayor and the council set the tone. The Chief operates under the guidance of the Human Resources department and the city manager. The day and age of the independent strong Chief is OVER. It appears to me the 4 officers involved in this issue in Minneapolis may of been in trouble before due to the lack of over site, the problem continued. It is possible the Minneapolis P.D. does have a strong union since it is Minnesota, a very strong union State. I think these 4 guys were rogues and it all finally caught up with them. Chauvin was their defacto leader and not the patrol Sgt. or Lt.

Pretty much every decision after that was made by inept liberals and anarchists. They were incapable of making sound and logical decision based on facts because they let emotion interfere with their decision making.

kwg

Because police chiefs are appointed by the mayors of cities, not elected and we see how they are leaning

What people want is honorable honest mature men in LE, to often what we have is what has been shown here in this thread

In my part of Missouri, which has shifted lately, our police seemed to be well organized and ready for most anything.

What we have is D leaders like DeBlasio and Cuomo and the afro mayor of DC allowing the BS we see on TV where cops kiss bleck ass and bend their knee.

There may be a trickle, down effect in some places but leadership is not what's here

You're right, there is no D leadership. There is plenty of D abandonment.

You're being played by the left.

We unionized to keep wages and benefits that our city wants to take away. I'm sure many police unions formed for the same reason. Our Union offered little help if you violated any departmental rules and we needed someone to "watch our 6". Once you become a public figure like a police officer you are open to public scrutiny. To make a public stand on an issue means you can now be scrutinized in your off duty time. I never wanted that. I did my job for 32 years and kept my opinions to my self so I did not have folks showing up at my house when I was either off duty or on duty. Our 1st Amendment rights might be the same as yours but it puts our job at risk if we publicly state it and it does not match the public statements of the entity you work for.

Remain silent and be thought a fool, speak and remove all doubt. I really don't think you are going to find many officers who want to get into being a public figure on their off duty time,

kwg